Trust Busters,1,538392.story?amp;ctrack=1&coll=la-headlines-west&cset=true&ctrack=1&cset=true

Until recently I had never watched "The View," a spirited little gabfest on ABC that is, apparently, trying to destroy America. Of course, I'm referring to co-host Rosie O'Donnell's remarks suggesting there was some sort of conspiracy behind the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on 9/11 and that the British—in an incident involving the detainment of 15 of its sailors by Iranian forces—might have intentionally been trying to provoke Iran as a prelude to some larger action, a la the Gulf of Tonkin. "Google it," Rosie told her viewers.

You know, I'm pretty sure I don't have to. The Gulf of Tonkin incident involved cooked American intelligence suggesting North Vietnamese forces had launched an unprovoked attack on two American vessels in August 1964. The incident, or President Lyndon Johnson's understanding of it, led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the president the authority to conduct military operations against North Vietnam without a formal declaration of war. And then we were off to the races.

Whatever else you might think about Rosie, you have to grant she has the advantage of unsympathetic enemies. First it was Donald Trump, who, stung by Rosie's mocking over the Miss U.S.A.-Tara Conner episode, went after Rosie like an irate New York cabbie, calling her fat, ugly, a loser and various shades of crazy. Trump, I think it's fair to say, got the worst of the exchange. In the most recent dust-up, Bill O'Reilly said Rosie was a "fanatical leftist" who was actively supporting Iran against her own country. Rosie's legions of detractors—just Google "Rosie" and "traitor"—were even less kind. Fox News' John Gibson called Rosie a "fat lesbian vampire bat bully," which is probably my favorite insult of all time.

Yet when I watch "The View," I don't see a morning talk show hijacked by seditionists, wearers of tinfoil hats or Revolutionary Guard partisans. Anything but. The show couldn't possibly be more conventional TV—the well-lit stage and sweeping camera booms, the eager Middle American applause, the endless roundelays about relationships and movies and kids. These people are making Easter egg figures with bits of yarn, for heaven's sake. The doyenne of "The View" is Barbara Walters, who is nobody's idea of an anarchist. Am I to understand that "The View" is a seething bed of anti-Americanism? If so, why are there so many commercials?

"The View," by accident or design, has an almost eerie calibration to the public at large. For example, only one of the four co-hosts—the game and reasonable Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who deserves some kind of medal—is a supporter of President Bush. In other words, 25% of the cast has a favorable opinion of Bush, pretty much in line with Bush's approval ratings nationally. Likewise, last year a Scripps Howard poll found that 36% of the U.S. public believes the government was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I estimate Rosie constitutes 36% of the cast.

I realize only people of the most serious mind read this column, so I'll explain: Why does pop culture matter? Because it reveals, in its turbulence of shared neuroses or distractions or antagonism what is really on our minds. And what's on our minds lately is reasonable doubt.

It was reported late last month that actor Charlie Sheen was onboard to narrate a new version of the online 9/11 conspiracy documentary "Loose Change," with distribution by billionaire Mark Cuban's Magnolia Pictures. We're not talking about a couple of flaky moonbats in an Oakland basement. Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks. Dallas is in Texas.

Sydney Pollack will direct a film about the 2000 election called "Recount"—any guesses as to its theme? And just about everywhere you look, official narratives are coming unglued: The blue-on-blue death of Pat Tillman, for example, or the firing of eight federal prosecutors. The abduction of British sailors in what Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed was indisputably Iraqi territorial waters has proved to be quite disputable, according to Craig Murray, former head of the Foreign Office maritime section. The ex-British ambassador claims the map used by the Ministry of Defence to support its case is a fake.

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

I suppose I should declare myself. I am not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I don't believe shadow agents of the government perpetrated an American Reichstag fire. At the same time, I'm certain we don't know all there is to know about those events, and I don't believe it's giving comfort to ask for better answers.

The mainstreaming of 9/11 conspiracy thought is less about the temperatures of melting structural steel or the smell of cordite at the Pentagon. It's about a generalized and corrosive cynicism that makes people despair of ever hearing the truth again. The data stream has been so thoroughly corrupted. Weapons of mass destruction. Abu Ghraib. The silencing of climate scientists. It's hard for the ministries of Washington to make an appeal to authority when they have been proven so unreliable.

When people can't believe everything their government says, they'll believe anything.

wake up Please!

"When people can't believe everything their government says, they'll believe anything."

What an ignorant statement! Nice try, but this author doesn't get it!

Tonya beat me to it....

"When people can't believe everything their government says, they'll believe anything."

When people can't believe - anything- their government says, they start investigating to find the truth. And the truth is that elements of our government were complicit in the false flag attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.

But I would say that the author 'does get it' and is simply another disinfo agent.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

I think there a fewer dedicated agents

than there is peer pressure, conformism and editorial constraint -- fear of tarnishing one's image and compromising one's position within the machine. It doesn't help our cause to declare any and all opposition disinfo, as it alienates others and sounds excessively paranoid.

People are afraid of going there (and this author dared to go futher than most) -- don't yell at them, help them overcome their fear!

interns < internets

It may well be that

this author is not disinfo

but I would bet a lot of bucks that there are many many didicated mockingbirds. There was a vast number during the early years of Operation Mockingbird and I believe it is a serious mistake to minimize the number now. And their knowledge of social psychology, propaganda and disinfo have only increased. The typical reader reaction is to give the benefit of the doubt to the writer in a case like this. ..... peer pressure, conformism, editorial constraint.... and, as I agreed, it may be true. But in this day, with what I know has gone on already and what is likely to go on as the situation becomes more dire..... I refuse to be so sanguine in my interpretation of anything.

be well

No doubt there are mockingbirds

O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage and likely many editors in chief ("We are grateful to the WaPo, NYT, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. ..") -- but not your average newspaper editor. Most likely, they are simply reigned in by hierarchy in case they try to go off limits -- unless they pay lip service to the orthodoxy?

interns < internets

You present your point

very clearly and may very well be correct with respect to many if not most. We have no real way of knowing....we play the law of averages. But I cannot help but wonder, in the ideal world for the disinfo agents, folks would be placed everywhere possible. Given limitations (whatever they may be) folks would have to placed strategically. If strategic placement were implemented, the LA times would be saturated. But what at what levels of responsibility? Who knows? But I do know that, unfortunately or not, the more I learn the more paranoid I get.

It is implicit

that individuals at the top of any given hierarchy will have the last word, so that constitutes a very effective failsafe mechanism involving relatively few people right there -- and a few people can always be brought to do the bidding of Mammon, be it through downright bribery or news organisations' dependency on advertising revenues.

I believe it is exceedingly improbable that half of the world's news staff attended courses at Langley and answer to them, so I'm confident there must be another explanation for their submissive behavior. To me, it appears quite probable that the mechanisms of control in the news microcosm are similar to those in the general societal macrocosm -- A lot of incredulity towards the Big Lie, social pressure, and a few influential moles at the top.

However, just like in the general societal macrocosm, awareness and consequently insurgence are emerging within the news microcosm, and pieces like this are very likely its manifestation. Or so I think...

interns < internets

Only one quibble....

Re: "I believe it is exceedingly improbable that half of the world's news staff attended courses at Langley and answer to them, so I'm confident there must be another explanation for their submissive behavior"

I do not believe that any great number of the thousands of orginal Mockingbirds ever set foot in Langley. They simplly received their marching orders from above. And they believed they were 'doing the right thing'. Which, of course, they were not.

But I do not think we are in serious disagreement here generally.

No, we're certainly not :-)

From time to time, it is enjoyable to have a perfectly non-antagonistic conversation. Let's consider it conspiracy smalltalk, ok?

interns < internets

There is another possibility

There is another possibility -- that the author wrote a straight piece and an editor insisted on putting in the snarky lines.

This has happened before. Some writers have said that the only way to get a 9/11 truth article printed is to partially frame it as a hit piece; their hope is that planting facts and information contradicting the OCT outweighs the doubt instilled by the requisite sarcasm.

This piece is so straight, and modified by so very few lines, it strikes me this may be the case here.

Yeah, that last line seems

Yeah, that last line seems tacked on.

Dan Neil Just Needs a Little Nudge

Dan Neil Just Needs a Little Nudge

for him to get the BIG Picture.

In the very near future . . .

. . . there will come a time when the writer of the above editorial does not have to add that last throw-away line in order to get past the editors and the advertisers.

Except for that last line, this article is on our side and lays out THE seminal issue in a clear way that we are well advised to keep in mind--

It's about TRUTH. And the lack of it.

The case he lays out for the background of lies is indisputable and provides a clear, effective way to begin a conversation with deniers.

LA Times

"I don't believe shadow agents of the government perpetrated an American Reichstag fire"

I don't either. They perpetrated the 9-11 scam. This guy's still speaking in code. At least he's speaking. Rosie forced his hand.

Shadow agents?

Most people blogging here also do not believe that shadow agents did it. Shadow agents? Much of it is right out in the open.

It is very bold to simply destroy three buildings like that. The two towers looked like roman candles, bursting upwards. Dramatic explosions. Then, WTC 7 just deflated, instantly, like a popped baloon.

Plus, disabling the whole US air defence system. There is nothing shadowy about it.

They did it because they hate our freedoms. Don't you suppose? They hate what is left of our freedoms, that is. Such as, for example, the internet.

But, meanwhile, I am glad to have anyone menitoning it at all in a public way like this. Later people will see it as we see it. It takes time to sink in.

I like her article

It almost sounds like she is a truther trying to get the message past her publisher.

it's amazing

how often people writing publicly will say, "Yes, we don't know all of the answers for 9/11, but no, the government was in no way complicit." Huh? On what grounds do you know this for sure, if there has never been a true investigation? I'm no logician, but that line of reasoning doesn't seem to make any sense. They presume to know what the answers to the unanswered questions will be.

I agree with others here: this approach has to be a way of masking their acceptance of 9/11 Truth, which they are afraid to declare in public.

Can you hear the ice cracking?

I love how this "Truther" wrote the column; it was great.
I know he claims he's not a Truther, but it's kind of obvious; I can put mint on shit and it won't smell like mint - know what I mean.

The official (bedtime) "story" is on it's last legs. How much more of this can it withstand? When you've got MSM articles in papers like the L.A. Times and the Winnpeg can only become an ever increasing torrent, now. Maybe we can get the heard mentality to finally work for us, as opposed to against us.

Let us not forget though gang, we live in a very dangerous time - we must be well on our defenses; for now they surely must be becoming concerned as to their fates. I fear they will not go quietly in the night.

If we see a flash in the sky antyime soon, I'm sure it will illuminate the initials GWB/DC.

Down the the official bedtime "story"!!

Long Live The Truth Movement
Long Live The Constitution
Long Live The Repulic
Long Live God!!

Dan Neil Just Needs a Little Nudge

for him to get the BIG Picture.

I certainly hope

that the general sense of the last few posts is correct. And if correct, I cannot but share the concern expressed above that this is a dangerous time.

by the way...and kinda off topic, .... does anybody know the reason Griffin's book delivery date was extended so far?